The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (the sentence of two years of suspended sentence in April, and the community service order of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that there is no record of crime exceeding the same kind and fine for the defendant, and the victim wanted to have the Defendant’s wife, etc. However, the crime of this case is a favorable circumstance, but the crime of this case is committed by the defendant by deceiving the victim together with B with the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is not good in light of the amount of damage, etc.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that community service order imposed by the court below for health reasons is unfair.

However, taking into account the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, the lower court imposed a community service order to provide an opportunity for edification and improvement, with an opportunity to see in mind within society, but lower the likelihood of re-offending.

Considering the fact that the community service order has the nature of security disposition, not punishment, and the possibility of a flexible execution in consideration of the condition and health condition of the subject at the execution stage, it is reasonable that the court below ordered the accused to provide community service for 40 hours within the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s discretion is excessive.